U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds, R-South Dakota, speaks during a Downtown Sioux Falls Rotary event on Oct. 28, 2024. (Photo by Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)
PIERRE, S.D. (South Dakota Searchlight) – A well-funded challenge by an independent fell short Tuesday as Republican U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota won reelection.
Rounds led Brian Bengs 62% to 38% when The Associated Press called the race at about 11 p.m. Central time with 58% of statewide votes counted.
Another six-year term for the 72-year-old Rounds will be his third in the Senate, after he served eight years as governor and 10 years in the Legislature.
Nationally, Bengs was one of four independent candidates for Senate in Tuesday’s election who were the main opponents of Republican senators. The others were in Nebraska, Montana and Idaho — states like South Dakota where President Donald Trump has won and Democrats have struggled.
Bengs is a 56-year-old Hot Springs resident who served in the Navy and as an attorney in the Air Force, and later worked as a college professor and park ranger. He previously ran as a Democrat for Senate four years ago, when he lost to Republican Sen. John Thune by 44 points.
Since then, the number of voters registered as independent or non-politically affiliated has surpassed the number of Democrats in the state, while Republicans have built a 2-to-1 registration advantage over Democrats.
Bengs became the only challenger to Rounds when this year’s Democratic nominee, Julian Beaudion, dropped out in August. Beaudion said at the time that he was pressured by Bengs and some Democrats to withdraw, an allegation Bengs denied.
The situation left South Dakota Democratic voters with a choice to make, including 46-year-old Democrat Heather Reed of Sioux Falls, who declined to say Tuesday at her polling place whether she voted for Rounds or Bengs.
“It was complicated,” Reed said. “I didn’t feel like there was a good choice for somebody that I believe has full integrity and maturity and will stand up for people who are marginalized. I’m not sure that either of the candidates will do that.”
Yet Bengs attracted campaign contributions from across the country and help from outside groups, who sensed a rare opportunity to compete with a Republican incumbent in a Republican-leaning state. Rounds was also well-funded, and total spending on the campaign approached $10 million earlier this month, according to campaign finance reports.
Anti-Rounds advertising from outside groups characterized him as complicit in Trump policies, including higher tariffs and the war in Iran, which have contributed to rising prices for fuel and consumer goods. Bengs criticized Rounds’ ties to the tech industry, including a Rounds senior adviser, Rob Skjonsberg, who has served as a state-level lobbyist for Facebook parent company Meta.
“South Dakotans deserve to know that the people who work for them aren’t using public service as a revolving door to lucrative lobbying jobs,” Bengs said during the campaign.
Bengs also highlighted contributions to Rounds’ campaign committee or associated political action committees, verified by South Dakota Searchlight, from people and political action committees tied to tech-company investors and major tech companies.
Rounds co-chairs the Senate Artificial Intelligence Caucus and has sponsored or cosponsored several bills impacting the tech industry. He responded to Bengs’ criticisms earlier this month in a Searchlight interview.
“Does anybody see where I would make a vote that would be different based upon individuals participating in funding my campaign or anybody else’s campaign?” Rounds said. “Everything that we do is reported. Everything that we do is done in accordance with Senate ethics rules and campaign rules. And the reason why folks support me is because they agree with me on my positions.”
Beyond those exchanges through the media, Bengs had difficulty inducing Rounds to engage. Bengs challenged Rounds to debates, but Rounds declined.
Rounds’ campaign focused on issues including his opposition to abortion, his support of military spending, and his A+ rating (compared to Bengs’ F) from the National Rifle Association.
Comments